Phronimon (2005) Vol. 6 No. 2http://hdl.handle.net/10500/5417
Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:27:42 GMT2015-03-31T22:27:42ZPlato's views on capital punishmenthttp://hdl.handle.net/10500/5500
Plato's views on capital punishment
Ladikos, Anastasios
Plato’s theory of punishment distinguishes scientifically
administered measures, which may or may not take the form of
actual punishment designed to cure a criminal of his offence
which is a disease of the soul, not something which is an
inseparable part of the concrete criminal act. He is aversive to
retributive punishment which is designed merely to make the
criminal suffer as a kind of primitive compensation for his crime.
Plato does not commit himself to the view that all forms of
punishment benefits the criminal as he reasons that only just
punishment has this effect. Capital punishment in Plato’s
penology is reserved for the incurable and the bad men
themselves would seem better candidates for this penalty than
those who in spite of propensities to vice yet succeed in avoiding
the greatest judgement. The mere infliction of suffering (timoria)
makes people worse than they already were; they will not be
cured or deterred as they will go from bad to worse, ultimately
become incorrigible and bound to be executed as an example to
others. Curing or rehabilitating the criminal in practice will mean
the reshaping of his character to a pattern approved by the
authorities. The death penalty is imposed for the worst offenders
but in Plato’s opinion it is not considered to be an extreme
penalty. This paradox can only be understood when pondered
through Platonic assumptions about morality, happiness and
existence after death.
Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:00:00 GMThttp://hdl.handle.net/10500/55002005-01-01T00:00:00ZDid the cynics condone theft? Possession and dispossession in the diogenes traditionhttp://hdl.handle.net/10500/5498
Did the cynics condone theft? Possession and dispossession in the diogenes tradition
Bosman, Phlip
In this paper, I explore the evidence in the Diogenes tradition on
the issue of theft. A line in Diogenes Laertius suggests that the
Cynic approved of temple theft. However, before that can be
taken as proof, various other factors need to be taken into
account: Cynic philosophical principles, their view of the gods,
and their adherence to begging and voluntary poverty. Finally,
the Diogenic anecdotes dealing with theft should be considered.
It appears that the Cynics could have constructed a case for
legitimising theft, but that they probably neither drew the
conclusion, nor put it into practice themselves. The claim that
Diogenes condoned temple theft may have found its way into his
Life from a hostile source, but it more probably goes back to
Bion of Borysthenes.
Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:00:00 GMThttp://hdl.handle.net/10500/54982005-01-01T00:00:00Z